Then tell me the correct understanding of board rules.
I am unsure. I suppose it means Rosebud can attack Dehlin under his real name but not his board name, while no one can use Rosebud's real public name when addressing her incessant attacks.
I suppose the one truly SOL in this free speech approach is board member John Dehlin.
By the way, I salute your commitment to free speech, but I do lament the horrible injustice to Dehlin caused by Rosebud's obsession and we all are part of the platform that has been provided to broadcast that craziness.
Then tell me the correct understanding of board rules.
I am unsure. I suppose it means Rosebud can attack Dehlin under his real name but not his board name, while no one can use Rosebud's real public name when addressing her incessant attacks.
I suppose the one truly SOL in this free speech approach is board member John Dehlin.
By the way, I salute your commitment to free speech, but I do lament the horrible injustice to Dehlin caused by Rosebud's obsession and we all are part of the platform that has been provided to broadcast that craziness.
Board Rule Do not make threats or take actions to cause another member to feel harassed or fearful for his or her safety "in real life." Please do not do this via e-mail or private message, either..
I'd like to know how, specifically, Rosebud is not in breach of this rule?
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
I am unsure. I suppose it means Rosebud can attack Dehlin under his real name but not his board name, while no one can use Rosebud's real public name when addressing her incessant attacks.
I suppose the one truly SOL in this free speech approach is board member John Dehlin.
By the way, I salute your commitment to free speech, but I do lament the horrible injustice to Dehlin caused by Rosebud's obsession and we all are part of the platform that has been provided to broadcast that craziness.
Board Rule Do not make threats or take actions to cause another member to feel harassed or fearful for his or her safety "in real life." Please do not do this via e-mail or private message, either..
I'd like to know how, specifically, Rosebud is not in breach of this rule?
Pretty much sums up my thoughts as well. So many times, I’ve asked myself why this gets to continue on and on, and my only thoughts are maybe this is the place where the harassment gets recorded for future legal purposes, or maybe it is allowed to continue out of fear of the board or its proprietors becoming a new target or obsession of Rosebud’s.
What is the rationale for allowing this continuing public harassment of Dehlin on this forum? I for one think it’d be nice if Dehlin could post here without harassment, not that he’d want to. You may say nothing is stopping him from posting now, but think about it. A wise man would avoid this place like the plague as it is right now.
So, the burning question for me is ****what is the rationale**** for allowing this to continue?
"Now to him who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you blameless before the presence of his glory with great joy” Jude 1:24
“the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin.” 1 John 1:7 ESV
Shades isn’t the most equanimous of administrators at times.
Tell me what you want me to do differently, and I’ll do it.
Ban Rosebud.
"Now to him who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you blameless before the presence of his glory with great joy” Jude 1:24
“the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin.” 1 John 1:7 ESV
I agree with Marcus. My opinion is that Rosebud has forfeited her right to privacy here: she has posted links to her own websites with her own name, she has open disdain for this website and its members, and she uses this website as a platform to make unsubstantiated allegations about another member here using his name.
She started a GFM for this board without asking permission from admin, slapped her in real life name on it and linked to it from here and as you rightly pointed out, she's linked to her own websites with her own name. She didn't forfeit her right to privacy or anonymity here. She relinquished it.
LIGHT HAS A NAME
We only get stronger when we are lifting something that is heavier than what we are used to. ~ KF
So, the burning question for me is ****what is the rationale**** for allowing this to continue?
Freedom of speech, because he's a public figure. But I freely admit that it makes me quite nervous, too, and always has.
But if we ban all criticism of the proprietor of mormonstories.com, then we also need to ban all criticism of the proprietor of interpreterfoundation.org. Is this a bridge we want to cross?
But if we ban all criticism of the proprietor of mormonstories.com, then we also need to ban all criticism of the proprietor of interpreterfoundation.org. Is this a bridge we want to cross?
Dr. Scratch has never been so obsessive as Rosebud, and he is very witty. Rosebud approaches her attacks in a scorched-earth manner.
So, the burning question for me is ****what is the rationale**** for allowing this to continue?
Freedom of speech, because he's a public figure. But I freely admit that it makes me quite nervous, too, and always has.
But if we ban all criticism of the proprietor of mormonstories.com, then we also need to ban all criticism of the proprietor of interpreterfoundation.org. Is this a bridge we want to cross?
There’s a difference between criticising someone for some of the assertions they make, for some of the content they put out etc, and public accusations of serious criminality. Rosebud isn’t criticising the content put out by Mormon Stories, she isn’t criticising what the proprietor of Mormon Stories says. She is making accusations about behind-the-scenes criminal wrongdoing. Obsessively. And she is using this board to do so.
Her behaviour is against one of your own board rules, but you continue to allow it. I suggest you either remove the board rule, or enforce it. But don’t do nothing.
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
Freedom of speech, because he's a public figure. But I freely admit that it makes me quite nervous, too, and always has.
But if we ban all criticism of the proprietor of mormonstories.com, then we also need to ban all criticism of the proprietor of interpreterfoundation.org. Is this a bridge we want to cross?
There’s a difference between criticising someone for some of the assertions they make, for some of the content they put out etc, and public accusations of serious criminality. Rosebud isn’t criticising the content put out by Mormon Stories, she isn’t criticising what the proprietor of Mormon Stories says. She is making accusations about behind-the-scenes criminal wrongdoing. Obsessively. And she is using this board to do so.
Her behaviour is against one of your own board rules, but you continue to allow it. I suggest you either remove the board rule, or enforce it. But don’t do nothing.
